scholarly journals Rules for Rights: European Law, Health Care and Social Citizenship

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott L. Greer ◽  
Tomislav Sokol
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Social Citizenship ◽  
European Law

Die freie Wohlfahrtspflege und die wachsenden Steuerungsansprüche des Staates: Fokus Kostendruck

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-74
Author(s):  
Ulrich Stoebe
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Service ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Social Resources ◽  
Health Care Sector ◽  
Federal State ◽  
European Law ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Welfare Mix

Zusammenfassung Subsidiarität ist in vielfältiger Weise ein verbindlicher, wenn auch auslegungsbedürftiger Grundsatz im deutschen und europäischen Recht. Zum Subsidiaritätsprinzip (als „Grundsatz des hilfreichen Beistands“) gehört die Verantwortung von Staat und Kommunen für die Vorhaltung von infrastrukturellen und sozialen Ressourcen. Anders als in vormodernen Gesellschaften mit ihren klaren Rollenzuweisungen in Familie und Gesellschaft ist für eine moderne Gesellschaft aber charakteristisch, dass sie eine Vielfalt von Akteuren kennt. So hat im deutschen Sozial- und Gesundheitssektor die verbandlich organisierte Wohlfahrtspflege eine herausragende Bedeutung. Innerhalb eines neu gestalteten subsidiären wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Arrangements muss gewährleistet werden, dass sich die Stärken und Schwächen der verschiedenen Träger sozialer Dienste optimal ergänzen. Ziel sollte die Transformation vom versäulten Wohlfahrtskorporatismus hin zum vernetzten Wohlfahrtsmix sein. Abstract: Association Welfare and Welfare Market Reformulation of Subsidiarity? Although subsidiarity is in many ways a binding principle in German and European law, it always requires interpretation. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity (as a „helpful assistance principle“) the federal state as well as municipalities have the responsibility to provide infrastructural and social resources. Unlike pre-modern societies with their clear distribution of roles in family and society, modern societies are characterised by a variety of actors. For example, welfare associations in the German social and health care sector are of crucial importance. Within a newly designed subsidiary welfare state arrangement it is necessary to ensure that the strengths and weaknesses of the various social service providers are taken into account. The goal should be the transformation of the welfare corporatism of isolated columns to a vertically linked welfare mix. JEL-Klassifizierung: I1, I2, I3

Three Welfare Models and Current Chinese Social Assistance: Confucian Justifications, Variable Applications

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 977-999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy J. Solinger
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Financial Aid ◽  
Social Assistance ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
Social Citizenship ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Citizenship Rights ◽  
Welfare Provision ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Poor

To situate today's social assistance program conceptually and historically, this paper presents three ideal-typical stances states may adopt in welfare provision, especially for indigent populations: (1) extend assistance to accord with social citizenship rights—or to fulfill the Confucian concept of the rite of benevolence; (2) offer subsidies to attain support or to pacify anger and silence demands from the poor; or (3) grant benefits (education, health care) to enhance the nation's productivity. The intended beneficiaries of these projects are, respectively, individuals, society and the state, and politicians. This categorization can distinguish, in broad-brush fashion, official handouts at diverse historical moments; the models are meant not so much to characterize entire eras as to illustrate differential styles of allocation. Moreover, each era justifies its practice with reference to Confucian dicta. In this comparative context, today's political elite bestows financial aid—but just a conditional kind—mainly to preempt disturbances and prevent “instability,” in line with the third of the types.

Verbandliche Wohlfahrtspflege und Wohlfahrtsmarkt

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-65
Author(s):  
Rolf G. Heinze
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Social Service ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Social Resources ◽  
Health Care Sector ◽  
Federal State ◽  
European Law ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Welfare Mix

Zusammenfassung Subsidiarität ist in vielfältiger Weise ein verbindlicher, wenn auch auslegungsbedürftiger Grundsatz im deutschen und europäischen Recht. Zum Subsidiaritätsprinzip (als „Grundsatz des hilfreichen Beistands“) gehört die Verantwortung von Staat und Kommunen für die Vorhaltung von infrastrukturellen und sozialen Ressourcen. Anders als in vormodernen Gesellschaften mit ihren klaren Rollenzuweisungen in Familie und Gesellschaft ist für eine moderne Gesellschaft aber charakteristisch, dass sie eine Vielfalt von Akteuren kennt. So hat im deutschen Sozial- und Gesundheitssektor die verbandlich organisierte Wohlfahrtspflege eine herausragende Bedeutung. Innerhalb eines neu gestalteten subsidiären wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Arrangements muss gewährleistet werden, dass sich die Stärken und Schwächen der verschiedenen Träger sozialer Dienste optimal ergänzen. Ziel sollte die Transformation vom versäulten Wohlfahrtskorporatismus hin zum vernetzten Wohlfahrtsmix sein. Abstract: Association Welfare and Welfare Market Reformulation of Subsidiarity? Although subsidiarity is in many ways a binding principle in German and European law, it always requires interpretation. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity (as a „helpful assistance principle“) the federal state as well as municipalities have the responsibility to provide infrastructural and social resources. Unlike pre-modern societies with their clear distribution of roles in family and society, modern societies are characterised by a variety of actors. For example, welfare associations in the German social and health care sector are of crucial importance. Within a newly designed subsidiary welfare state arrangement it is necessary to ensure that the strengths and weaknesses of the various social service providers are taken into account. The goal should be the transformation of the welfare corporatism of isolated columns to a vertically linked welfare mix. JEL-Klassifizierung: I1, I2, I3

Mea Culpa: Apology Legislation, Accountability and Care

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 749-769
Author(s):  
Karine Levasseur ◽  
Fiona MacDonald
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Theoretical Approach ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Ethics Of Care ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Social Citizenship ◽  
Accountability Mechanism ◽  
Potential Impact

AbstractIncreasingly, jurisdictions are adopting “apology legislation” that allow medical professionals to apologize to patients and family members when an adverse event occurs while disallowing the introduction of the apology in a liability case as evidence of fault or liability. While apology legislation itself is fairly straightforward, its potential meaning and impact is much more complex. This paper conceptualizes apology legislation from an accountability and ethics of care perspective. These two concepts—accountability and care—are distinct but interrelated concepts and this dual theoretical approach offers a rich analysis on the potential impact(s) of apology legislation. We argue that apology legislation is a mechanism added to the existing accountability regime that can offer important opportunities to express and practise care. As an accountability mechanism, apology legislation creates space for an accountability relationship to emerge between medical professionals and their patients. Apology legislation also addresses long-standing gaps in how we as a society think about health care and respond to patients and families in ways that challenge the dominant “consumer of services” role. It is in this sense that apology legislation has the potential to destabilize traditional notions of social citizenship. Last, we argue that empirical research is urgently needed to know to what degree apologies contribute to accountability and the transformation of health care.

Malpractice & Negligence: Cal. Supreme Court Clarifies Negligence Provisions under State’s Elder Abuse Act

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-203
Author(s):  
Kendra Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Pressure Sores ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of California held, in Delaney v. Baker, 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610 (1999), that the heightened remedies available under the Elder Abuse Act (Act), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15657,15657.2 (West 1998), apply to health care providers who engage in reckless neglect of an elder adult. The court interpreted two sections of the Act: (1) section 15657, which provides for enhanced remedies for reckless neglect; and (2) section 15657.2, which limits recovery for actions based on “professional negligence.” The court held that reckless neglect is distinct from professional negligence and therefore the restrictions on remedies against health care providers for professional negligence are inapplicable.Kay Delaney sued Meadowood, a skilled nursing facility (SNF), after a resident, her mother, died. Evidence at trial indicated that Rose Wallien, the decedent, was left lying in her own urine and feces for extended periods of time and had stage I11 and IV pressure sores on her ankles, feet, and buttocks at the time of her death.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document